lol, she's talking more object-level tho. like "this thing you did is a microaggression against me" mapping to "you did this thing to hurt me on purpose, which is now a grievance that means i get to control you"
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @0knaomi and
i think the discourse definitely encompasses that, which would be the sturgeon's law bit i was talking about earlier, i just don't think the 10% doesn't exist
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I strongly doubt it exists, but the important feature that makes me aggressively disregard the concept of micro-aggression is that it is impossible to disprove those 10%'s existence, making it like Russel's Teapot, or grandma's multiple peculiarly conflicted supernaturals
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
they're not unfalsifiable, they're just unfalsifiable to a hostile interlocutor
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
You can say that about Psi too, methinks. Even easier with Psi, I'd argue.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
lol, the psi excuse is "my hypothesis was falsified because of the hostile observer", kinda the inverse akshully
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @0knaomi and
Psi is my "the Universe is not required to be consistent just because I think it is" exception. No test conducted by neutral observers has yet produced replicable and reliable evidence of Psi powers. I accept that. However, I don't accept that that means they don't exist.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @legalinspire @chaosprime and
I mean, call me Blaise if you must, but I have seen phenomena with my own eyes that I am satisfied cannot be explained by the laws of physics as we know them. I cannot replicate them. The most parsimonious explanation, of course, is that I am mistaken about what I saw.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @legalinspire @chaosprime and
we need a new thread for weird story time
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @legalinspire and
the best crazy shit i've seen unfortunately has an obvious, if neurologically fascinating, parsimonious explanation (if you wake up suddenly enough during REM you will vividly hallucinate whatever you were looking at in your dream, briefly until your retinas adjust)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
one of these days I'll actually type up the ole hypnogogia journal
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @chaosprime and
Trivia: Positive hallucinations are much easier to induce than negative hallucinations. My theory is that this is because our brains are evolutionarily wired to prefer false positives to false negatives.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @legalinspire @danlistensto and
If you mistake a shadow for a cave bear, you'll just be embarrassed for a second. If you mistake a cave bear for a shadow, you will be removed from the gene pool. Suddenly and violently and all over the place.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.